Donald Tusk,President of the European Council. – Mr President, I will start my report from the European Council with Brexit. Last Wednesday evening, leaders listened to Prime Minister May’s views on the negotiations. Afterwards, the EU27 met in the Article 50 format, with our chief negotiator Michel Barnier, to discuss the state of play. It was made clear by the UK that more time is needed to find a precise solution. Therefore, there is no other way but to continue the talks. Leaders expressed their full trust and support for Michel Barnier.

Since Prime Minister May mentioned the idea of extending the transition period, let me repeat that if the UK decided that such an extension would be helpful to reach a deal, I am sure that the leaders would be ready to consider it positively.

President Juncker also touched upon preparations for a no-deal scenario, an outcome which we hope never to see. And, of course, I stand ready to convene a European Council, if and when the Union negotiator reports that decisive progress has been made. The Brexit talks continue with the aim of reaching a deal.

Turning to migration: in the course of our regular discussions, on Thursday morning we had an exchange on our migration policy in all its aspects. The EU leaders want to strengthen external border control and deepen cooperation with third countries to stop illegal arrivals. The focus last week was also on increasing cooperation with countries in North Africa, and a tougher approach to people-smuggling networks.

Leaders noted the Union’s achievement in stemming mass arrivals of irregular migrants over the past three years, even if more remains to be done. We thanked the Austrian Presidency for its efforts to reform the Common European Asylum System and agreed that work should continue with a view to finding an agreement as soon as possible.

The European Council also adopted a number of decisions on internal security. Some of them should be seen in the context of increased concerns and risks of hybrid, cyber, as well as chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threats. One element of particular interest was the leaders’ call to create a capacity to respond to, and deter, cyber-attacks through EU sanctions. Of course, this is especially important in light of the European elections next year and the active threat posed by malicious, outside interference in our democracies.

During the Euro Summit, the Eurogroup Chair, Mário Centeno, gave an update on the finance ministers’ work on the ESM reform and the banking union while the European Central Bank President, Mario Draghi, informed leaders on the economic outlook. The objective of the meeting was to keep up the pressure for concrete results in December. EU finance ministers should speed up their work if we are to achieve our goal, which is strengthening the ESM and the banking union further.

Leaders also held a short debate on external relations, including on the fight against climate change ahead of COP24 in Katowice. We adopted conclusions on taking our relations with Africa to a new level – an issue of great importance – and in this context agreed to organise a summit with the League of Arab States on 24 and 25 February next year.

For many of the issues discussed at the European Council – from migration to security – as well as the need to scale up the Union’s presence as a global actor in many fields, the EU’s budget is key. At a technical level, there have been detailed discussions on the next multiannual financial framework, but, in general terms, we are far from reaching any sort of consensus. This is why I will propose a political discussion at the December European Council. I welcome the intention that the consolidated position of this Parliament is to be known by then.

Let me close with a word on the shocking killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi in Turkey earlier this month. This was such a horrible crime that even the slightest trace of hypocrisy would bring shame on us. It is not my role to state who wants to protect whose interests here. But I know one thing: the only European interest is to reveal all the details of this case, regardless of who is behind it. Knowing your sensitivity and determination, I believe that you will not allow for Europe, the Member States or the institutions, to become involved in any ambiguous game.

Frans Timmermans,First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, on behalf of Jean-Claude Juncker, I will not go into great detail on the October European Council, as President Tusk has already shared a full account of the results achieved.

Allow me to touch very briefly on the negotiations with the United Kingdom. As was clear after the European Council, the bottom line is that we do not yet have the decisive progress that we need. The goodwill and the determination to find an agreement as soon as possible are there, but it is also clear that we will not rush a deal through at the expense of our principles or our agreed commitments, most notably on the Irish border question. With all of this in mind, we must now continue negotiating with patience, calm and an open mind.

The Commission and our chief negotiator, Mr Michel Barnier, received the full backing of all leaders to do just that. It is time to deliver and we are getting on with the job. That is what we are focused on doing across all of the issues that matter the most for our future, as we discussed yesterday when we debated the Commission’s work programme.

When we talk about our future, we must first talk about Africa. Our partnership with Africa has enormous potential for both sides. It must be fair and balanced, helping both partners to grow. This is why the Commission last month proposed a new Africa-Europe Alliance for Sustainable Investment and Jobs, to strengthen the economic partnership with our African friends. This is about concrete action, taking forward commitments made together with the African Union over the past years, notably in Abidjan. With your support and that of the Member States, the Alliance will help attract investment in Africa. It is expected to create 10 million jobs over the next five years and support youth employability through education and training.

The External Investment Plan is well in motion to serve the ambitious objective of jobs and growth creation. It is well advanced in order to mobilise over EUR 44 billion in both public and private investments. The project already in the pipeline will unlock EUR 24 billion. The potential is there. The framework is there. Now it is time to deliver results.

ast weekend showed that when Europe is united, the consequences can be amazing. Last Saturday, we saw some 700 000 people marching in London to have a final say on a possible Brexit deal. We think the British people deserve – once they have seen the measures and the consequences of this divorce and once they have seen the lies of the Brexiteers – to have a final say on their future. This is my firm belief and this is my understanding of democracy.

The next European elections are of outstanding importance for the future of our continent and for the future of democracy.

Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Mr Bullmann, I would remind you, when you talk about right-wing extremists, we have to remember that Nazis were National Socialists. It’s a strain of socialism. So let’s not pretend: it’s a left-wing ideology; they want the same things as you. Let’s be quite clear.

(Uproar)

So Mr President, despite all that – you don’t like the truth, do you? – you don’t like that. Come on, it’s National Socialism.

A lot happened in Brussels last week, and it is sometimes easy to forget that some of the things that happened were positive. As leader of one of the most pro free-trade Groups in the European Parliament, we welcome the signature of the trade, investment and partnership agreements with Singapore, just as we welcome the progress on the EU-Japan trade deal and the adoption of the Vietnam trade agreement. We also welcome the US Government’s push for agreements – the Trump administration’s push for agreements – with Japan, the EU and the UK. These developments, we believe, are a signal of a more outward-looking EU, a re-engaged USA, and a global Britain.

However, it is difficult sometimes to convince the electorate when things are going in the right direction, when we had yet another summit with no clear outcome on migration or on Brexit – as you said, Ms Grossetête. Agreeing a withdrawal agreement may be complex, but many of us have been here long enough to know that there is no such thing as an impossible situation. We have seen time and time again the seemingly impossible become the possible, the inflexible become the flexible, the proverbial rabbit pulled out of the hat at the 11th hour for situations that have been described as ‘all or nothing’, such as a Danish opt-out, or Protocol 36 with the UK – legal experts managed to find unique solutions. In this case, either the seemingly impossible will become possible, or there will be no deal.

Mrs May’s position on the backstop isn’t a negotiating position or a bluff: it is quite simply a Prime Minister defending the constitutional sovereignty and geographical borders of a nation of a hard-won peace, born through generations of violence and diplomacy. It was clear that, as leaders sat on the Grande Place sharing a joke and a drink, instead of continuing into the early hours of the morning, there was no real sense of urgency around reaching a deal at this Council Summit. So the sooner we start building our shared future, rather than fighting about our shared past – our joint past – the better for everyone.

What we need to do is redouble our efforts to find compromises that address the concerns of both communities in Northern Ireland, not just the Nationalists and the Irish Government. Let us look again at indicative time limits, possible sunset clauses, declarations, protocols and technology away from borders that allows checks away from borders. Let’s look to the future, not cry over the past. The ECR believes that one way of regaining the confidence of the voters is a clear and united policy on the handling of the migration crisis. We welcome the fact that many of the policies now being discussed within the Council were policies proposed by the ECR Group at the peak of the crisis, such as speeding up processing returns; increasing funds and powers for Frontex; seeking enhanced arrangements with third countries to stem the flow of migrants; and allowing countries to contribute in other ways apart from only relocation. If these common-sense policies had been adopted sooner and not dismissed as simply anti-European or populist at the time, then maybe the system might be in better shape now.

This is why the ECR Group doesn’t wish to see another national or European election go by, where Brussels dismisses the results or the legitimate concerns of its electorate in favour of policies which actually have not yet reached a real result. Instead, we should be asking countries how they are willing to help. Some will take in genuine asylum seekers; some will help refugees closer to their homes; some will give money to help frontline countries. So whether it’s Brexit or the migration crisis, the time for talking and posturing on both sides is nearing an end. It is time to focus on the future, not simply cry over the past.

Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all I would like to address Mr Kamall. I want to tell you something. I think that what you did was not very wise, and that you have to apologise, in fact, because talking about Nazis as National Socialists and pointing a finger at the Socialist Group is an insult to all those Social Democrats who fought against Nazis,

(Applause)

and who died in concentration camps. I think that would be the best step from your side.

To Ms Grossetête, I say thank you very much for your comments. I think I agreed with you 100% – more even than when Manfred Weber takes the floor – and I think it is exactly the feeling of the House. Why was it necessary to have a European Council in October? Nothing has been decided – not on Brexit, that was expected; not on migration and the Dublin system, no progress; not on the eurozone governments, no progress.

First of all, on Brexit, you know, we are now in the battle of the figures. Prime Minister May says 95% has been agreed. Michel Barnier says 90% is being agreed. I know that Britain has always had difficulties with the metric system, but I have to tell you one thing: whether it is 90% or 95% or 99%, if there is no solution for the Irish border, then as far as our Parliament is concerned it is zero per cent that has been agreed for the moment. We need an agreement on this Irish border, and the Good Friday Agreement has to be protected.

Nevertheless, I continue to be optimistic. I think that a deal can be reached in the coming weeks, in the interest of the Union and in the interest of the UK, and my question to you, Mr Tusk, is this: can you also make a decisive last push on citizens’ rights – that is, to offer unlimited onward movement for the British citizens who are living in the EU27, in exchange for a right of lifelong return to the UK for European citizens? I was in Downing Street, and they are ready to go for such a trade-off, and if you, with the Council, were to push for such a solution, it is a trade off that is possible. So do that at least, for our citizens, so that they have no negative fallout from this Brexit tragedy that we are living through today.

(Applause)

That brings me to the second point for the Council – namely migration. I will repeat, and I will say it not in French but in English, that I am very disappointed, as is Ms Grossetête. It is now four months since June when the Council promised that an enormous package would be delivered. The transformation, for example, of Frontex into a fully fledged European Border and Coast Guard with 10 000 new agents – no agreement in the Council on that. The reform of the Dublin system – it was two years ago that the Commission put the proposal on the table – again, no progress in the Council.

Finally, my third complaint is about the lack of reform of the eurozone, including the Banking Union. It’s now more or less 10 years since the outbreak of the last financial crisis and we still have no governance system in place for the eurozone. Nevertheless, we all know that there could be a next crisis, and this time maybe not in tiny, sunny Greece but in the world’s eighth biggest economy, namely Italy. We have not a single pension fund or investment company in the whole world today that does not hold Italian bonds or securities. So, let there be no misunderstanding, I think that the attitude of the Italian Government in not following the rules of the Stability and Growth Pact is completely irresponsible. But, at the same time, I’m also saying that a big share of the responsibility rests on our shoulders in relation to the strategy that is coming up. Where is the new governance of the Economic and Monetary Union to avoid the sort of free-riding behaviour that the new Italian Government wants to engage in now? Where is the new Minister of Finance for the Eurozone, who could stop such behaviour? Where is the euro budget?

Where are the euro securities and, more urgently – if, in the coming months or year, this sovereign debt crisis should become a banking crisis – where is the resolution fund? How are we going to avoid the next bankruptcy in the eurozone, not only of the Italian financial sector but also perhaps of the entire European financial sector?

I really think that the attitude of your colleagues in the Council today is dereliction of duty: sleepwalking to a new financial catastrophe that everybody can see before their eyes.

I have one ultimate question, Mr Tusk, it’s not a question directly to you my dear Donald, but you are responsible for it, and it concerns method. Is this really the method that will deliver: the government leaders coming together four times a year for two days, and looking forward to getting back again quickly to their capitals? I think the method is wrong. You need to lock them in a meeting room – no new clothes, no new underwear …

(Comment from Mr Lambert ‘no food’)

No food? No, that would be torture, that is something different, Mr Lambert. But it is necessary, Mr Tusk, that you change your method. I was with Jean Claude Juncker in Nice, and we worked for four days, and four nights until four o’clock in the morning, and we came out not with the best deal that we have ever done but at least having achieved something. Today we are in the middle of a migration crisis. We face a new financial tragedy in the eighth biggest economy of the world, in Italy, and our government leaders go home and say it was not possible to find an agreement on migration and on the Dublin system; it was not possible to put in place new governance for the eurozone. That has to change. It’s not five minutes before midnight, Mr Tusk, it’s five minutes after midnight.

Syed Kamall (ECR). – Mr President, I will explain to Mr Bullmann and then I will move on. I do get tired of people saying that Nazism is a right—wing ideology. We disagree on this. But what I would say is that I believe in freedom of speech. But if I have offended you – and clearly I have – I apologise unreservedly. I have apologised. If I offend – and clearly I have offended you – I apologise unreservedly. I do not believe in offending my political opponents or offending my friends, so I apologise. I hope you will accept that.

Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I think under Rule 164 of our revered procedures I am allowed to respond to the comments you made as President of Parliament, some of them personally insulting. Maybe you have a bit of a problem with your temper. I will ignore the personal comments you made about me, but I will say this: we do seem this morning to be struggling just a little bit with our history. To claim, Mr Tajani, that the European Union brought about the downfall of Nazism and Soviet Communism isn’t only laughable, it is very ungracious and deeply insulting to the United States of America, which made massive sacrifices so that Europe could be free twice in the 20th century, and – to a slightly lesser extent – the United Kingdom, as 30 000 British dead in Italy will attest. So you can claim what you want for the European Union, but please do not rewrite history.

Mr Tusk, I want to thank you for confirming that it was Theresa May who asked for the one—year extension to the transition period. I also want to thank you for your recent offer, saying that if Britain wants a Canada Plus—style trade deal, you are open to it. Indeed, it’s what I have campaigned for, for 25 years. I’ve always thought this was a better approach between our country and the EU than the one we currently have.

Now every proposal of course seems to founder on the question of the Irish border, but given the slight state of panic that German industry is now getting itself into – and maybe that’s not surprising because a WTO deal would lead not just to tariffs on German cars, but a weaker pound and probably a more competitive UK economy – the time has come to look for answers. The funny thing is the answers are staring at us. Not so long ago, Mr Juncker in the Irish Parliament made it very clear that there were no circumstances under which the European Union would impose a border. Indeed, even Mr Varadkar, the Irish PM, who is not usually particularly helpful in the Brexit process, has said that under no circumstances will there be a hard border. This Parliament produced a study by one of its own committees, the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, entitled ‘Avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland for Customs control and the free movement of persons’.

The point is, there are solutions everywhere we look. The idea that somehow this border is an impediment is, frankly, a red herring. The problem, I’m afraid, is that there is a rogue element in these negotiations, a group of people who do not wish to see a solution, who put up an immovable brick wall to stop us from breaking free, and I regret to say that it isn’t your chief negotiator, Monsieur Barnier, but actually the British Civil Service and Olly Robbins’ team. They signed up years ago to the European dream. They’ve been happy to take their orders from Brussels. They are now out to sabotage Brexit. They are indeed the enemy within.

I think that unless the Conservative Party comes to its senses and gets rid of a leader who clearly is being led by the nose, then we will head to the December summit, we will head towards a humiliating sell-out, and we will head towards the United Kingdom being trapped in EU rules for many, many years to come.

Maria João Rodrigues (S&D). – Madam President, I would like to say to President Tusk that we have indeed a serious situation when it comes to the European Council not being able to deliver real solutions to the problems we are confronted with. We do, of course, have many external challenges but something that we know for sure is that we need to strengthen internal cohesion among Europeans and the recipe for this is very clear. We need to address social inequalities by fully implementing the social pillar and we need to support investment into the future.

We still do not have all the necessary means. At the heart of this you have a historic task, which is to complete, reform and rebalance the economic and monetary union. We have all the proposals on the table. We need the political will to complete the banking union, to reform the European Stability Mechanism and to create a budget capacity in the euro area in order to support Member States to invest in the future.

Let me give you a concrete case. I come from Portugal, which is recognised today as a country which is making a real effort to go beyond blind austerity and to make a real recovery and a real effort to change. But now we are stuck. We cannot go forward unless the economic and monetary union is properly reformed. These kinds of cases must be supported because, if they are not supported, you will start having cases like Italy in other places in Europe. This is the choice that the European Council is confronted with. Either we support countries which want to move ahead with social cohesion and turn to the future or we will have a fragmentation of the European Union. The choice is there on the table of the next European Council in December.

Sophia in ’t Veld (ALDE). – Madam President, today’s debate is the monthly ritual dance with the Council and I think many of my colleagues have already explained how we feel about the total inability of the Council ever to reach any results. I am getting a little bit tired, Mr Tusk, of the monthly hollow words that we are hearing, of the bored look on your face when you are listening to the debate. You just seem to think, ‘OK, I have to sit through this, but at least I can go for lunch afterwards.’ Nobody seems to be feel responsible here. You are the co-legislator, but the Council has become a completely dysfunctional body. It’s a bit like the Bermuda Triangle of politics: you put proposals in there and they disappear, never to be seen again. It is total paralysis.

You know what? It’s not just that the Council is totally unable to solve any crisis at all; the Council has become the crisis. And I dare to say more: the Council, in its current paralysis, is a threat to the future of the European Union. You have to ask yourself, as President of the Council, Mr Tusk, ‘Am I going to assume my responsibility for the European Union or am I just going to enjoy this job for as long as it lasts?’ It is about time that the government leaders understood that they are also European politicians; they have a responsibility for this continent, for the European Union, and they cannot content themselves with travelling to Brussels or Salzburg or whatever, having a photo opportunity and then agreeing not to decide anything, because I don’t think it’s even an inability to decide anything – it’s deliberate. The government leaders don’t want to decide anything. They are quite happy keeping everything that they have. But what they don’t seem to understand is that by not deciding anything, they cannot keep things as they are, because the world keeps turning – they cannot stop it.

Finally, on the asylum package: it is an absolute disgrace that after three years’ deliberation, there is still no decision. Go back and do your homework, Mr Tusk. Skip lunch today.

Josep-Maria Terricabras (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would like to bring some quiet and peaceful words after the previous disgraceful dispute. I will concentrate on Northern Ireland, because thatʼs an important point, and summarise the situation. The goal of including a protocol or not in Ireland in the withdrawal agreement is to protect the Good Friday Agreement by avoiding a hard border and by ensuring that there will be no diminution of rights for the citizens in the north. This protocol will be used as a backstop to protect the Good Friday Agreement in case the future relationship does not solve the issue.

We propose the participation of Northern Ireland in the Single Market and the Customs Union for goods through regulatory alignment. But this solution cannot be extended to the whole of the UK, as Westminster would like, precisely because the UK’s government majority in Westminster – of which the Democratic Unionist Party is a key element – does not accept any differential solution for Northern Ireland, since this would create a border in the Irish Sea. The Commission remains open to discussing other proposals to secure a backstop solution for Northern Ireland in the withdrawal agreement, but at the moment the UK has not presented any alternatives.

Unfortunately, we didnʼt achieve any agreement at the political level. In any case, we support the position of the Commission on the need to include the backstop in the withdrawal agreement; on the proposal itself; on the fact that we are open to discussing other proposals if the UK comes up with something reasonable. The last Council meeting was not able to take steps forward on this extremely sensitive issue, which needs a prompt and clear solution.

Lynn Boylan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, as we predicted, the British Government is trying to isolate and understate the issue of the border dividing Ireland. It is saying that we have 95% of the issues solved so therefore it is in the interests of the EU to abandon Ireland. They discovered the bottom line of the EU in December and have been trying to negotiate downwards ever since. The British Government has yet to understand that failure to agree the 5% – the backstop – means that there is no agreement on the 100%.

Time is running out for Theresa May to escape the poisonous embrace of the DUP. The DUP are a busted flush. They do not even represent the majority view of the North of Ireland. They speak out of both sides of their mouth on regulatory divergence from Britain – just ask the LGBT community and the women who travel to Britain every day for abortions. It is time that Theresa May restores trust in the negotiations and signs what she agreed in December.

Patrick O'Flynn (EFDD). – Madam President, this European Commission will go down in history as the one which saw the wheels fall off the federalist wagon. Mr Juncker and Mr Timmermans have been full of bonhomie in their personal style, but the content of their politics has brought the EU into constant conflict with democratically-elected national governments. The latest victim is Italy, whose governing coalition has been told its economic policies – for which it has a mandate – are unacceptable to the Brussels commissars. What was it that Mr Juncker famously said? ‘There can be no democratic choice against the European Treaties’. So from the moment the Commission was chosen as the EU negotiator for Brexit, it’s been determined not to agree a velvet divorce and continued friendship but to administer a public punishment to the British people for daring to vote for a future away from the constraints of European Union law. It’s not been motivated by a desire to keep trading ties smooth with its largest customer. It’s shown no understanding of the character of our island nation, inhabited by the proud descendants of those who saved the countries of continental Europe twice in the 20th century. And I’m sorry to say it’s been aided in its mission by a weak and uninspiring British Prime Minister who neither supported nor even understood our desire for national independence.

But do not believe the bulletins brought to you by has-beens from the UK political class – the likes of Heseltine, Blair and Clegg – who tell you that by keeping the punishment up, you can bring Britain to heel. The ordinary patriotic British people are, in fact, appalled by your antics and will not buckle. Mr Juncker says Europe is the love of his life. The sad truth is that his Commission is behaving like an obsessive: smothering goodwill and suffocating affection for her. In the time this Commission has left, I urge him to steer a wiser course on Brexit and much else besides.

Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – Madam President, unfortunately I could at this moment repeat the same conclusions from any of the past three years’ Council meetings, because it’s very obvious that the leaders are failing European citizens’ expectations miserably and profoundly. We have delivered on climate change and security, but when it comes to migration, there is a complete failure. Council does not deliver.

This Parliament acted responsibly. After careful studies and consultations, we made difficult compromises and came up with a text on the reform of the Dublin Regulation that a two—thirds majority of this plenary – this House – could tolerate. Meanwhile, in the ivory tower far away from any contact with citizens and reality, Heads of State are throwing insults at each other and refusing any compromise. Frankly, I find this embarrassing for this Union. Council has not made one single step of progress. And I would just ask this: when can we foresee any kind of result from the Council?

Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, do you remember ‘Brexit means Brexit’; ‘we’re going to make a success of it!’; and the promise of an EU trade deal that would be the easiest in human history? Well isn’t two years an exceptionally long time in politics. There is now parliamentary paralysis and the Conservative Party has descended into bitter in-fighting, unable to agree a way forward.

My country has been left ungoverned by the ungovernable. Chequers is dead, but neither is there enough support for alternative versions of Brexit being driven by a Brexit syndicate of far-right think tanks. Now the language has also become mafiosi, with talking of a killing zone and hot knives in the Prime Minister’s chest. This highly dangerous talk must be stopped right now.

It’s now clear that the only way out of this deadlock is to hand the process back to the people. Last Saturday I joined 700 000 others on the streets of London, marching in support of the people’s vote, demanding a choice between this Brexit shambles and staying in the EU. This was the second-largest demonstration in British history. I was delighted that it was young people who led this march and who spoke so passionately about our place in the European Union. They have a right to all the freedoms and opportunities that I’ve enjoyed during my life. The movement looks unstoppable.

British MPs are now being bombarded with letters and emails from their constituents demanding a people’s vote, and there is growing cross-party support for the idea. It’s time for the UK Parliament to let the people decide the best way forward for our country.

Pavel Telička (ALDE). – Madam President, I would like to say to Present Tusk that he has heard a lot of sharp words here today and I must say, President Tusk, some of those were unfair and I would not share in them. In fact your task is not an easy one. I know that you have to cope with Prime Ministers, Presidents, and if I look at the Czech leadership, one of the most critical to the European Union in terms of the abilities to solve migration issues, then the same leadership is undermining issues or instruments such as Frontex. I must say that looking at you, I even envy our Polish friends that they have a politician like you.

But the fact is that Parliament is an ally for you. You can come and you can tell us something different from what we read in the media. You can come and you can consult ahead of the European Council, you can use us and the views that are practically unanimous, in the European Council. You can provide leadership and you can really deliver. At the moment, whether it’s migration, whether it’s governance, we are failing. The Council is failing.

One last remark: I am really ashamed that the Council and the High Representative are unable to say a strong word and a strong message and sanctions on the question of the Saudi Arabia issue. It is a shame.

Diane Dodds (NI). – Madam President, I want to thank President Tusk for the update and insight into the possible extension of the transition period. Like you, I hope for an agreement at the end of this process and an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

The public debate has moved on from the October Council. We now know, from leaks of the text, that the EU will consider an all-UK customs arrangement for the backstop, but apparently not within the withdrawal treaty; I’m presuming wanting to leave the Northern Ireland-specific one in place. While this would be portrayed as a move forward from the EU, it is both a naive and negligent strategy. The insistence of a customs or regulatory border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would damage Northern Ireland economically and constitutionally. It would ignore the principle of consent within the Belfast Agreement. It would leave a hugely controversial measure in a legally-enforceable treaty in exchange for a promise of further negotiation: not something that could be accepted.

Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – Madam President, if the UK needs more time to reach agreement, it should be granted. In the spirit of the peaceful coexistence of countries, all of us should refrain from meddling in the political diversity of the UK, as well. I welcome the Council tackling hybrids, cyber, disinformation and CBRN. I also welcome the notion of restrictive measures, although I point to the huge challenge in the attribution of attacks.

President. – Colleagues, before I give the floor to the next speaker, I regret that we will not be able to take catch-the-eye because of the time constraints, and we do have a two-hour vote. So apologies to those who wished to use that.

Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). – Madam President, this European Council, as we have established, will not go down in history. On Brexit, the responsibility is clearly on the UK side. We fully back the assessment that negotiations have not achieved decisive progress and President Tusk’s decision not to call for a European Council in November but to stand ready to do this if and when decisive progress is made. We are close to an agreement, but at the same time what is missing is a decisive and indispensable component of a deal.

We reiterate that without a backstop for the Irish border, the European Parliament will not give its consent to the withdrawal agreement. We are not demanding a border in the Irish Sea but a simple, decentralised, mostly immaterial fall-back mechanism which shall not pose any challenge to the integrity of the United Kingdom, and we stand open to consider solutions like a longer transition and a UK-wide customs union, which will make the likelihood of using such a backstop remote.

In this respect, we fully share the overall stance expressed by President Tusk and Michel Barnier. We are calm, open, constructive but very firm on principles, such as the right of citizens, the integrity of the Single Market, the protection of the Good Friday Agreement, and of course our arms are and will always be open if the UK changes its mind.

The lack of progress on the completion of economic and monetary union is a great responsibility of the Member States. Those who do not understand that we desperately need to complete the banking union, to establish a European unemployment benefits scheme, to make tech giants pay their fair share of taxes and to enhance our investment capacity are making a big mistake. A special mention has to go to the cynical irresponsibility of the Italian Government, which is challenging the very logic of any common rule and is doing this not to support growth and jobs but to pay with the money and the savings of Italian citizens for its electoral campaign, giving amnesty to tax evaders and paving the way for further austerity, making any battle for a better eurozone and more risk-sharing more difficult.

James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, I have listened this morning with a degree of trepidation to what I have heard. Let me make it very clear to the great and the good in this House – if you want to listen – that we cannot and will not, as Unionists in Northern Ireland, accept a customs or regulatory border between us and the rest of the United Kingdom. That’s non—negotiable. On that we are united.

Now we have the backstop behind the backstop, and I’m just wondering where we’re actually coming from, and who is involved here. Let me make my position very clear: I do not want to be in a position where we have no deal or a bad deal. I want – and the people I represent want – a deal that works, and above all that delivers. The backstop does not. It is a busted flush. It can’t deliver.

So I have to say to you, Mr Tusk, why do you and Mr Barnier continue to go down this road? There are other ways. There are other solutions. Is it not time we looked at other ways, rather than trying to push something that is never, ever going to work?

Richard Corbett (S&D). – Madam President, there is deadlock on Brexit. The October deadline has been missed, the November European Council is uncertain, and all because of paralysis inside the UK Government, which seems incapable of reaching internal agreement as to what it wants. But already one thing is clear: Brexit will bear no resemblance whatsoever to what was promised by the Leave Campaign in the referendum. They said it would be easy; it’s proving to be pretty difficult. They said it would save lots of money that would all go to the National Health Service; it’s proving to be costly. They said there would be new trade deals ready on day one: what an illusion. In these circumstances itʼs not surprising that many people in Britain are asking to reconsider: 700 000 marching in London on Saturday; opinion polls shifting in the opposite direction of what people had expected: not rallying behind the referendum result but moving the other way.

‘If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy’, and that is what many in Britain hope will be available for them to do. And I know, Mr Tusk, I know, Frans Timmermans, you cannot intervene in that internal British debate, but please, do nothing to make that change of heart more difficult.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, so another Council meeting comes and goes without an agreement, the United Kingdom tries to backtrack on a backstop agreement that was agreed in writing, and 700 000 sensible people take to the streets of London to protest about this ongoing calamity. This past week truly was Brexit in a nutshell.

It was indeed disappointing that a deal could not be reached. However, Michel Barnier has the full confidence and support, and indeed gratitude, of Ireland and the rest of the EU27. Progress has been made and I am confident that a deal can be reached, including the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the avoidance of a hard border on the island of Ireland. From my meetings this week with Michel Barnier and United Kingdom Permanent Representatives, I think this will be achieved at the 11th hour.

On the Irish backstop, let me be perfectly clear. Ireland will listen to all proposals that the United Kingdom brings forward, but any proposal, in order to be acceptable, has to be legally operative and ensure that we avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It has to protect the integrity of the single market and the customs union, and it has to apply unless and until we have a new relationship that supersedes it. We cannot allow uncertainty about the border and its impact on the peace process to persist beyond the United Kingdom’s withdrawal. This is something I would expect the hard Brexiteers to be conscious of, given the fact that they are part of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland is in the United Kingdom.

A deal is essential. A no—deal scenario would have enormous impacts on us all and most of all on the United Kingdom. Research by Imperial College London has estimated that a two—minute check at the Eurotunnel would cause a 10-mile traffic queue, a three—minute check would cause 20 miles, and a four—minute check would cause 30 miles. This is the reality of a hard Brexit. Let us be very clear. We want an agreement. An agreement is essential. I thank all our colleagues here, Michel Barnier, Donald Tusk et al, for their support. We will continue working on this issue.

Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). – Madam President, first of all, banking legislation: in order to reach a compromise, the Council needs to understand there is a need for compromising, and then we can achieve a lot.

Africa: a continent of hope and despair. Countries in war but also countries with growth.

When China wants to increase Chinese power, we need to support African democracy. When the US makes itself smaller, we need to get taller. When China gets meaner, we need to be keener.

Regarding frameworks and agreements for trade, investments, modernisation, new infrastructure: doing what we can in order to have the best possible development in this continent of huge opportunities and one of our most important neighbours.

Brexit: let’s hope for democracy. Let’s hope that the millions of people wanting to stay can make their voices heard. But letʼs also ensure that we can get the best possible agreement if there is no change. Of course, the United Kingdom is an important part of Europe and an important country, and we need to safeguard the best possible relationship.

Russia: let’s not underestimate what Russia is doing to the Europe of today. Cyber warfare, hacking, destabilisation, warfare (as in Ukraine), repression, corruption: let’s be strong in standing together and do what we can regarding Africa, safeguard ourselves against Russia and ensure that we can have the best possible economic development. Then we will be strong in the world.

Seb Dance (S&D). – Madam President, it’s a strange quirk of parliamentary procedure that you have to wait so long to listen to sensible British voices in this Chamber, having heard the complete disgrace from Members opposite earlier this morning. I cannot believe what I am hearing from my own Government party – and, indeed, the disgrace that is Nigel Farage – criticising the civil service for not delivering their own fantasy.

The reality is that Brexit is failing and we are seeing people flailing around desperately, issuing insults in the name of the British Government. It is not a strategy to threaten a no deal, effectively standing there with a can of petrol and a lighter threatening self—immolation. This is people’s jobs and people’s livelihoods we are talking about. Nearly three quarters of a million people marched in London against the mess that is Brexit. These are ordinary, decent people, who are sick and tired of being insulted by their own Government. It is time now to stop this nonsense. Nothing that is happening now is anywhere near what was promised in the referendum. It is time for informed consent for the British people if they want this mess to go forward. Put it to the people, put it to a people’s vote, and we need your help in giving us the time to allow that to happen.

(Applause)

Luděk Niedermayer (PPE). – Madam President, let me just cover three issues which have already been discussed here, first of all concerning Brexit. It is a pity that sufficient progress has not been reached but I still believe that in the weeks to come we will find a good agreement. It is essential that the EU27 keeps together as one and that we defend the clear interest of our members, especially of our Irish colleagues.

Secondly, let me talk a little bit on taxation, as I am coming just for negotiation of the report of the Committee on Financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance (TAX3). This is an area in which the EU can bring enormous benefits for EU citizens. If we solve the outstanding issues in the tax regimes, this will bring better and fair competition to the market and we will gain the trust of our citizens and, at the same time, this will allow countries to reduce some taxes which are the most damaging for the economy. There are many very important files on the table, especially CCCTB, CCTB, VAT reform and digital tax. While the Council was able to reach some progress on some tax files, it seems to me that there is not sufficient progress on these dossiers and this is a great pity; it is a lost opportunity for Europe.

Last, but not least, let me talk about migration. The number of irregular migrants has gone down. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the efforts of the Member States to find agreement and make Europe more ready and better prepared for such a crisis in the future are also fading away and that is a very bad thing. We must get ready for future problems and we must solve the issues that we have been discussing for the last three years. So, also in this area, let me urge the Council to move forward.

Frans Timmermans,First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, allow me to thank all those Members who took time from within their small amount of numbers to speak, to set the record straight from other political parties as to the historic role social democracy has played in fighting Nazism. Thank you.

What I would also like to say – because what was said this morning has really affected me emotionally – it’s not so much the comparison that is made or the putting of social democracy in one group with Nazism. That’s not new. This is what we’ve seen happening – just go on the Internet – for years on the extreme right, where they try and rid themselves from their own heritage by saying that Nazism belongs to the left or to social democracy. That’s not new. What is new to me is that the leader in this House of the party of Churchill and Thatcher would appropriate that narrative. What has happened to the Conservative Party that not so long ago – in the last 10 years – was still a member of the European People’s Party (EPP) in this Parliament? What has happened that they are now using the same narrative that Mr Farage and others have been using for many years, a narrative that they’ve always distanced themselves from? Has what Churchill predicted when he talked about appeasers happened – the only thing you get by feeding a crocodile is that the crocodile will eat you last? Has the Conservative Party finally been eaten by UKIP? I hope not.

(Interjection from the floor: ‘I hope so’)

I’m sure you hope so, yes, but I do hope not. I say this because I will make no secret of my deep admiration and affection for the United Kingdom and everything it has achieved during European history. I say this also because I don’t want to hide my deep sadness regarding the decision taken by the British people in the referendum to leave the European Union. The European Union is not a market. The European Union is an instrument to help European people solve their differences around the negotiating table instead of at the battlefield. The European Union is the best guarantee that no British soldiers will have to be sent to battlefields in Europe again, as they have so valiantly done in our common history. The European Union is the best guarantor for peace in Europe for the ages to come, and for one of the biggest Member States to leave that European Union is an incredibly sad moment. I want to say that in this House, but, given that decision, we are all under an obligation to do as little harm as possible in the process. As a democrat, as a human being, who in this House has never ever changed their minds on anything? We’ll leave that with the British people. That’s not for us to judge. But I want us to be clear about our obligation as the Commission, European Parliament and Council: that we should do everything in our power to make sure we do as little harm as possible. That is the attitude with which the Commission should do this. This will not be helped by exaggerated political rhetoric, by appealing to the darkest angels of European history. Let’s have a rational debate, let’s understand that we build bridges – not walls – in this European Union. Let’s be clear about that.

I want to end with a quote from one of my favourite writers, Primo Levi. I say this because of what was said this morning. I quote: ‘Auschwitz is outside of us, but it is all around us, in the air. The plague has died away, but the infection still lingers and it would be foolish to deny it. Rejection of human solidarity, obtuse and cynical indifference to the suffering of others, abdication of the intellect and of moral sense to the principle of authority, and above all, at the root of everything, a sweeping tide of cowardice, a colossal cowardice which masks itself as warring virtue, love of country and faith in an idea.’

(Applause)

Donald Tusk,President of the European Council. – Mr President, thank you for your interesting interventions. I really appreciate your involvement, even if I don’t agree with all your arguments and emotions. You may have noticed that I never try to take too much of your precious time, and today I will also stick to this rule. However, I cannot leave two interventions without a comment.

First, on migration. Almost all of you have expressed your disappointment with the lack of decisions on migration policy that you were expecting from the European Council. I understand your dissatisfaction, because I know that the will of the majority in this House was to establish mandatory quotas. In spite of what you are saying, the European Council is building the common European solution for migration policy. But in the centre of this approach is the strengthening of cooperation with third countries, a fight against human smugglers, external border protection – and not mandatory quotas.

The real progress in the European Council is that today, almost everybody understands that our priority should be stopping the inflow of irregular migrants and not their distribution.

On Brexit, we want to avoid a hard border in Ireland, but there is no guarantee that we can do it. And do you know why, Mr Farage? Because Brexit is de facto a political decision to re-establish the border between the Union and the UK. Brexit is a project to separate the UK from the EU. I don’t know what is going to be the result of the negotiations, but I know that it is the Brexiteers who are 100% responsible for bringing back the problem of the Irish border.

Finally, I would like to share with you one remark. Listening to the debate here, I get the impression that some of you would like to see a Europe where there are no Member States and no governments. Please do not be surprised that I am not on the same line.

Karoline Edtstadler,President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I am sorry for being delayed. I was wrongly informed but, on the other hand, I am very happy to have a full plenary session here. I am happy to see that.

(Applause)

By the way, I was following the debate on TV so I saw that you have just adopted the amendments to the Council’s position on the draft budget for the financial year 2019. I take note of the differences in the position of our two institutions concerning the draft budget for 2019 presented by the Commission. Consequently, in my capacity as President of the Council, I agree that the President of the European Parliament convenes the Conciliation Committee, as required in Article 314(4)(c) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, the general budget is one of the most complex and crucial files that Parliament is adopting this year. I am happy to see that we have gone much further than the Commission and the Council in our commitments.

I am speaking about the enforcement of the Youth Employment Initiative, Horizon 2020, the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund and other projects. The budget for next year must be tailor—made to address the needs of our citizens. Therefore I support the programmes that give the highest European added value.

As the shadow rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs to this report, I did my best to contribute to the chapter on security and citizenship. I specifically underlined the role of EU agencies, which are practical tools in solving security problems. We cannot give them big mandates and little money. We cannot do more with less. In addition, I initiated and supported several pilot projects. One of those is the protection of investigative journalism and media freedom in the EU. In some EU countries like my country, Latvia, it is crucial.

John Howarth (S&D). – Mr President, I am delighted to support some of the aspects of today’s budget, particularly the propositions that put funding and resources behind the fine words that have been spoken in this Parliament to tackle the problems of sexual harassment. For too long we have had just words. After today, we will have what we need to address the problem, which is resources and people with the skills and the experience that we need to take that problem on, so I am delighted about that.

The overall cost of the European Union budget per week per citizen is about a pint of beer. The cost of this Parliament is about a cup of coffee a year, but it is very important that we seek to bring down that further and I am delighted to see that propositions for a single-seat Parliament are going through Parliament today. It’s for far too long that we have neglected that issue and if the French are serious about it, and Mr Macron is serious about it, then he can take on this problem too, because it rests in his hands.

Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, this is the 20th time that I’ve sat here and spent two hours nodding through budget increases. In those 20 years, there’s been just one fixed rule of every EU budget, and it’s this: it only ever rises. We’re way past the point where people are trying to match spending to specific need. The EU is now seen as an end in itself. There’s a general mood in this Chamber – I think if you’re honest, you’ll all recognise it – that it is better for the EU to be doing something even if it does it badly, than for the nation states to be doing it more efficiently.

Now in fairness, this is an attitude common to almost every organisation. Any bureaucracy over time becomes primarily interested in its own aggrandisement. Its primary purpose becomes to spend more on itself and its notional stated purpose becomes secondary – if you’re lucky. But you’ve just got to ask the question: is there any sum of money that is enough to sell a fundamentally flawed idea?

Lucy Anderson (S&D). – Mr President, in today’s budget vote, it is highly regrettable that the shortfall in funding for the European Union Agency for Railways was not reversed, as proposed by the Committee on Transport and Tourism, in this Parliament. The agency must therefore be required to bear alone the recurring costs of a new information and communication coordination system, which is vital to railway safety.

To answer the previous speaker, this is a specific new responsibility. It is required by European Union law and it will apply across Europe. Although the budget resolution amendment did highlight that extra funding for agencies with additional responsibilities must now be found, this on its own is insufficient. I call upon the Commission and the Council to follow that up with concrete action and find the money for the European Union Agency for Railways.

Alex Mayer (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome this report on the reductions of plastics.

I recently had the pleasure of meeting Winnipeg, a sea lion with a passion for recycling, at Colchester Zoo in my constituency. Winnipeg is a bit of an environmentalist and enjoys hunting out plastic bottles and putting them into the recycling bin near her pool. It’s a fun and splashy way of getting across a green message to youngsters. And the zoo are also taking practical steps in its cafés, like swapping plastic straws for paper and plastic ice cream spoons for wooden ones.

There is a real wave of anger about the 12.6 million tonnes of plastic being dumped into our seas every year. 62% of people who watched the BBC’s Blue Planet programme who were surveyed said that they wanted to make changes to their daily lives to reduce their impact on the oceans. People want to dive in and make a difference.

It is time to help protect sea lions, whales, penguins and their pals from the devastation of plastic pollution, to clean up our seas and save wildlife that’s hanging on by a whisker.

John Howarth (S&D). – Mr President, I am pleased today to support this ambitious report on single—use plastics. I believe that the European Union can – and should – lead the way in cleaning up the world’s oceans. The scale of the problem is staggering, with eight million tons of plastic waste ending up in the oceans every year.

It’s an ecological catastrophe, but with firm action we can solve the problem. A lot of the plastic that’s in our seas from food and drink packaging can be replaced with something more sustainable. We can make sure that plastic bottles are recycled. Unless we act now with determination, the effect on our marine life will be drastic, and who knows where that will end. This report is a step in the right direction, but there is much more that we need to do. But we can do this.

Finally, as a British MEP, I am delighted and proud of the role that the BBC, and Sir David Attenborough in particular, have played in bringing this problem to the attention of the world.

Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, in 1979, when my sister came home from a Girl Guides trip with a plastic spoon and a plastic fork, myself and my younger brother had a fight over who would get to keep it. The reason why we fought to keep it was because we had never seen one before. I won the fight. I got to keep this new lightweight, plastic, modern future for us. At the time we were worried; our main worry on this planet was a nuclear holocaust. Little did we realise that the plastic fork and spoon that I had in my hand was actually going to turn out to be more dangerous – and I say that now, even with who we have in the White House. By 2050 there will be more plastic in the oceans than there are fish by weight: 130 different marine species known to have ingested plastic.

This proposal focuses on the top ten single—use plastics: cotton bud sticks, cutlery, plates, stirrers and straws. It would not take a genius to replace the plastic in the cotton bud with wood. My mother was not a genius to use proper cups and plates at our birthday parties. It wouldn’t take me to be a genius to use proper cups and plates at future birthday parties. More of this: this is what the Union should be about, not war and not about finance.

Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE). – Mr President, this report is an important step to prevent the negative and harmful impact of plastics on the environment. Invented in the mid-19th century, plastic has been mass produced since the early 1950s, with an exponential rise in production in the last 15 years. Over eight billion tons in barely 65 years, resulting in more than six billion tons of waste. This is an alarming figure, and tackling the plastic problem is a must. This throwaway society is turning our oceans into one great garbage bin, with plastic responsible for 85% of our marine pollution. If we do not take action, by 2050 there will be more plastics than fish in our oceans. I fully support the proposals to introduce new rules on the use of plastics and a new strategy for plastic in the circular economy. I encourage the Commission to support businesses and technological innovations which aim to substitute the plastic used in certain products. The protection of our environment is our responsibility, and the EU should lead the world towards a cleaner and greener future.

Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I was very pleased to vote in favour of this report. As the EPP negotiator for the Committee on Fisheries on single—use plastics, I am conscious of the wide-ranging effects of our excessive plastic production and pollution. We are creating unnecessary, harmful waste every day and an EU—wide approach to tackle this is long overdue.

We have to take advantage of the alternatives to single—use plastic. The EU should take leadership in this area and there is an economic opportunity available in producing innovative, reusable products. Studies show that up to 30 000 new local jobs could be created if the EU acts on this. Plastic pollution has a significant impact for citizens, marine life and the environment at large. In my own constituency, in Ireland South, the coast and seas surrounding the island of Ireland are our greatest resource and they need to be protected. I welcome the ambition to reduce the littering by more than half for the most common single—use plastics. The damage to the environment otherwise would be in the region of EUR 22 billion by 2030.

Karoline Edtstadler,President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, thank you for inviting the Presidency to your monthly topical debate.

The Council has not yet discussed the evaluation of the Lisbon Treaty as such. The Council implements the Treaty with a view to achieving results. We believe our focus should be on delivering results for our citizens, in particular, right until the end of the present term. Be assured that the Austrian Presidency will be focused on this.

On this I would simply note that the ordinary legislative procedure, which is now generalised after Lisbon, works well – and I would like to thank the European Parliament for the good cooperation – and that the relations between the Council and Parliament on the whole have indeed improved.

Beyond this, there is certainly a debate about the evaluation of the Treaty and, more generally, about the future of the Union. We appreciate that Parliament has been working on several reports on certain aspects of the Treaty. I am sure that in today’s debate a variety of views will be expressed, based on respective political perspectives.

That said, I will listen to your debate attentively. Thank you for this opportunity.

Frans Timmermans,First Vice-President of The Commission. – Mr President, frankly, I prepared for a debate about the Lisbon Treaty. I was waiting for Mr Zanni to go onto the Lisbon Treaty. He went onto many things, very interestingly, but not onto the Lisbon Treaty. I will stick to my brief anyway.

The Treaty is a reflection of what Member States collectively want and require from the EU. They have come together and pooled sovereignty because they see there are challenges that no one Member State can address acting alone. As Jean-Claude Juncker said in the State of the Union address this year, and I quote: ‘European sovereignty is born of Member States’ national sovereignty and does not replace it. Sharing sovereignty – when and where needed – makes each of our nation states stronger.’ End of quote.

Too often the discussion on sovereignty is a pretext for the question of how we can stop things, but the real question we should ask is: how can we act effectively and legitimately in the face of challenges or crises? I also want to react to some of the things Mr Zanni said. There is no imposition. Every single Member State has signed and ratified the Treaty. You can’t afterwards say, ‘I’ve signed and ratified, but I will not apply the Treaty’. We are based on the rule of law and that means that this Union can only function if we can accept that those who sign and ratify the Treaty also apply the Treaty. If we have a problem with that, the Commission can intervene and at the end of the day, it’s the Court of Justice that will rule on this. That is the essence of how we constructed the European Union after the Second World War. Creating the impression that this is an imposition from outside is, I think, fooling your own people and it is irresponsible. It can create a certain feeling of ‘we’re being dictated to from outside’, but it is not a reflection of reality, and it is also hiding away your own responsibility. You have a responsibility vis-à-vis your colleagues in the Council, vis-à-vis the European Parliament, vis-à-vis the Commission, but you certainly have a responsibility vis-à-vis your own signature, your own ratification, and I think we should be talking about that more.

I also believe that if you look at the number of Treaty changes we have seen over the years, you see that, given the complexity of the challenges and the complexity of working together and having to tackle issues no Member State can tackle on its own, the need for decision through qualified majority voting (QMV) has increased. I hope we can use the coming time to look into areas where QMV can be increased, especially in foreign policy. If you have to take decisions on international human rights, or if you have to take decisions on commercial issues, I think QMV could be a helpful instrument. Again, and I come from a country where the temptation of thinking that the veto was the best thing you had has sort of waned. People understand that a veto can only give you the instrument to stop something temporarily, but it doesn’t give you the opportunity to act, to actually do something proactively, and so I think the discussion of QMV will have to move forward.

On issues such as taxation, there is no way we can muster enough strength against the huge corporations that can negotiate tax deals with individual Member States that de facto mean they don’t pay any taxes if we don’t do this at the European level. We need to do this at the European level, and for that I think QMV would be important as well.

I also want to mention briefly the task force on subsidiarity and proportionality that Jean-Claude Juncker created last year. Yesterday in the Commission work programme, we set out in broad terms how we believe the task force needs to respond to the questions that were put on the table by Member States, by national parliaments and by other stakeholders such as regional and local authorities. We will prepare this for the Bregenz conference that will take place soon. The core of the issue is that we need to make sure that all those who in the end have to work with legislation are also involved in preparing the legislation, helping us to evaluate the legislation, to make sure that we avoid duplication, to make sure that we avoid unnecessary complexity. It is now also my experience that the issue is not, in general, should competences be returned from the EU level to Member States? We've challenged everyone to give us some examples, and the examples are few and far between, but not really very concrete.

The real issue we need to tackle is: how do we legislate? How do we do this? Can we not do this in a way that is less complex, that will help local and regional authorities to have ownership of these processes? Where can we evaluate existing legislation to make sure that we take out what is no longer necessary etc.? We should get out of this logic that the only thing we could do is do less. We need to do things Europe needs to do, and we need to stop doing things that are nice to do. We only need to do what we need to do. I believe that if we start from that premise, we will understand that there is a tremendous amount we still need to do, and I couldn’t end my intervention without referring to the momentous decision this Parliament took today to embrace the plastic strategy. It is now up to the Council to do something that a vast majority of Europeans want us to do, and they want us to do it now.

Danuta Maria Hübner, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I will speak on the Lisbon Treaty as well. I believe that it has brought immense progress to the functioning of the EU in terms of efficiency, democracy and also transparency. But it maintained and enhanced the system of intergovernmental policy coordination, which was very different from the Community method, and for many of us this has been a disappointment. As a result, important policy decisions and actions are based on the voluntary commitment of Member States, with all its consequences. We saw during the time of ‘polycrisis’ that this working method does not work when key challenges are at stake.

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has proposed – and the whole House accepted when voting through a series of reports last year – the logic to first explore fully the potential of the Lisbon Treaty and only then to reflect on the changes to the Treaty that would be necessary to attain desiderata the boundaries of the Treaty of Lisbon do not allow to be pursued.

But we all know that today unanimity makes Treaty revision virtually impossible. There is a long list of issues on which the Union has moved forward, building on the unexploited treaty potential – PESCO is a recent example here – but the list regarding unused Treaty potential remains even longer: the passerelle clause that has never been used; the European Parliament’s right of inquiry and its right of legislative initiative; reinforcement of the rule of law framework; transparency of Council legislative decision—making; and accession to the ECHR.

Without doubt, within the Lisbon Treaty framework, we can move forward on completing reforms of the EMU. All we need is the political will. In this House we have called for the use of QMV in the Council, but also for the general use of the ordinary legislative procedure. Eventually all decisions, including on the MFF, should be taken by QMV, even if a very high one in some particular cases.

So yes, indeed, we can clearly use the existing unexploited potential of the Lisbon Treaty to improve the governance of the Union and its institutional set—up. I believe that this will make the Treaty of Lisbon more relevant to the challenges that our policy—making will face in the years to come.

Richard Corbett, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I too thought Mr Zanni had turned up for the wrong debate, but then he moved very quickly onto the old clichés about the European Union becoming some sort of centralised superstate. We hear a lot about false news these days, but really, this is a false narrative. Just look at the facts: this Union, its central administration, the Commission, has fewer employees than the city of Leeds in my constituency. Its budget is scarcely 2% of public spending – 98% is national. No legislation can be adopted without the approval of both this elected Parliament and national ministers – members of national governments, accountable to national parliaments – meeting in the Council. It’s not actually possible for this Union to act in areas that the Member States don’t want it to act in. It’s in those areas where we need joint action.

I was Parliament’s rapporteur on the Lisbon Treaty. It was a series of reforms to make the Union work better and to improve its accountability, a series of reforms that needed the grand slam of ratification by every single Member State to get through, so again, a very high level of consensus about it. What did it do? Firstly, it made our Union work better. As Mr Timmermans has mentioned already, more majority voting, fewer vetoes, but a qualified majority still needs a very high threshold in the Council. It has allowed the European Council to choose who chairs its meetings, instead of having a Buggins’ turn rotation with a new President every second meeting. It allowed us to have one external representative – the High Representative – instead of two as we used to. It rationalised our work, but it also made the Union more accountable. Prior scrutiny by national parliaments – every legislative proposal goes to them first. They have an eight-week period to look at it before we begin on it.

Election of the President of the Commission by this Parliament; the Council to meet in public when adopting legislation; the whole budget subject, and others which I can’t list because of lack of time; many other democratic improvements.

Maria João Rodrigues (S&D). – Mr President, I also know the Lisbon Treaty quite well because I was part of the team of the Portuguese Presidency in charge of completing the negotiation of this Treaty in Lisbon back in 2007.

Let me make a clear point. The problem we have is not with the Lisbon Treaty. The problem we have is with the kind of policies we need to implement in order to deliver better European solutions. Let’s be fair: when we focus on the Treaty, the Treaty has involved important progress when it comes to democracy. First of all, the fact that this Parliament has extended co—decision in many, many new areas. This is really deepening European democracy. Second, the Lisbon Treaty could pool sovereignty where this is needed: when we address climate change; when we negotiate trade agreements; when we affirm our monetary sovereignty. In all these areas we need stronger European sovereignty. This does not go against national sovereignty. This is to strengthen our control of the situation.

I am now addressing the part of Parliament and those Members of the European Parliament who are taking a position against the European Union and the treaties of the European Union. You are wrong. This is not the problem, and the solution is not to withdraw from the treaties. The solution is to change policies in favour of more economic and social convergence and more tax fairness. That’s for sure. So this is the way to go.

Alfred Sant (S&D). – Mr President, as a member of the Convention on a European Constitution, held 16 years ago, I well understand how the Lisbon Treaty was shaped to carry over the main conclusions of that failed constitution. Yet it had been intended to transform the EU from a top—down construct to one that directly related and responded to the concerns of European citizens.

The Lisbon Treaty aimed to strengthen the bottom—up dimension of the Union and make citizens feel it was really theirs, so the functions and powers of the European Parliament were increased. Today, the members of this parliament, mindful of their increased powers, try to make them stronger. Members of this parliament diligently work on new proposals and laws intended to promote the welfare of all citizens. Still, EU institutions, this parliament included, are even now seen by citizens as top—down arrangements.

Many in this parliament fear, as we have just heard, that in the next European elections abstentions will be numerous and so—called populist extremist parties will achieve a record success. We need a radical evaluation of how this state of affairs has developed – one that does not rely on the repetition of exhausted pro—European creeds and dogmas.

Frans Timmermans,First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I already said this morning that the origins of European integration is the wish of the European people to negotiate their differences around the conference table rather than on the battlefield.

But if you look at Europe today, the challenges we face are global challenges and the one question you can ask your citizens – and I am sure of the answer you’ll get – is, do you honestly think you can face the migration challenge on your own as a Member State? Do you honestly think nationalism is an answer to the challenges of economic change in the fourth industrial revolution? Do you honestly believe that being on your own will make you stronger in facing the challenges of President Putin or the challenges of a President Trump, who wants to change the international system? Do we honestly believe we will be stronger on our own? I don’t think there is a constituency anywhere in a Member State that truly believes that, and I’m afraid the British people today are learning this the hard way.

I believe that if we take that as a starting point, the way we transform our rules, the way we apply the Treaty to face these challenges and to come up with real results for our citizens, is going to determine whether we’ll get support for this. I think debates about abstract notions such as sovereignty are distracting people or they are causing alarm.

I do maintain that you can have a theoretical approach to sovereignty and to saying I want national sovereignty. Theoretically, technically, yes, national sovereignty, but I think it was Michael Heseltine who said that ‘a man alone in the desert is sovereign [too]’. He dies of thirst but he’s sovereign. Sovereignty should also be a material issue. Does it give you the power to act and to change things the way your citizens want things changed? Then the answer will be very clear: only if we act collectively can we shape the world according to the values we share in a world that is changing so fast. I wish that could be the starting point of our discussion about what we need in a treaty.

There are still ample opportunities in the existing Lisbon Treaty to move ahead. Let’s try and use those opportunities first, and if they are exhausted we can talk about treaty change. But we haven’t exhausted the possibilities that are on the table with the existing Lisbon Treaty. Let’s do a great service to our citizens and use those opportunities to actually change the world in the direction they want.

President. – I regret that not all of us have utilised the time for evaluation of the Lisbon Treaty, which was the topic of this topical debate, but of course there is freedom to approach it in one’s own way.

Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – The signing of the Lisbon Treaty took place at a time when members of national minorities in Central and Eastern European countries were still experiencing the positive effect pre-accession had on the respect for their rights. These citizens were also extremely enthusiastic about the prospect of the EU internalising the principles of the pre-accession when, for the first time in the history of the Union, the Lisbon treaty introduced national minorities as a protected ground in Article 21 of the Charter and also mentioned the respect for the rights of minorities among its founding values. The years that passed since then gave way to disillusionment in the heart of many citizens, as the EU not only restrained from adopting legal acts for their protection, but it also failed to sanction Member States when they started curtailing their already acquired rights. At a time when definite failures are daily experienced in the compliance with the founding values of our Union, it is time this glaring omission in the EU legal framework was set right. This is what more than 1 million citizens also requested using the novel ECI instrument of the same Lisbon Treaty.

President. – We will now proceed with speakers on behalf of the political groups. I have to highlight that we are somewhat behind schedule – itʼs a long agenda this afternoon and this evening – so I will have to be strict on respecting the time slots.

Luke Ming Flanagan, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, in 2017, out of a budget of approximately EUR 140 billion, the EU spent 52.8 billion on agriculture and rural development. This equates to less than half of one per cent of Member States’ GNI. As auditors, concerned where funds are spent, this represents outstanding value for money.

The fact that 500 million citizens of the EU have access to quality, affordable food is perhaps one of the greatest achievements of the EU. The error rate in direct payments (Pillar 1) is below 2%. With improvements in the control systems – both the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) and the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) – this is expected to improve further. The error rate in Pillar 2 is higher, and while we must be aware of this and work to improve it, it should come as no surprise. We should bear in mind that Pillar 2 schemes focusing more on environmental issues are inherently more error-prone and less easily quantifiable. We face huge challenges in this area and we must continue to set the bar high and assist our farmers as they take on new challenges in climate change mitigation. We must resist the urge to focus solely on error rates in this sector, which may have the unintended consequence of lowering ambition in order to comply with targets in this vital sector.

These things must be kept in mind in the upcoming CAP. With the Commission’s proposed new delivery model, will it lead to the much-touted simplification at farmer level? How will fragmentation of one of our oldest policies under the banner of subsidiarity lead to better outcomes in an area where we must work together across the EU, namely climate change mitigation? And finally, from an auditor’s perspective, there are hard questions to be asked of the direction of this CAP reform. Look at it closely. It’s going to be a disaster.

Georgi Pirinski (S&D). – Mr President, there is one central finding in the Court’s report. In the fifth year of this period, we are twice as bad at properly appropriating funds in comparison to the previous programme period. I feel that the Commission is not paying sufficient attention and taking responsibility, its responsibility, for this totally unacceptable situation. The Commission takes the kind of attitude that it knows about this ‘retard’ and is taking it into consideration and doing what is necessary. It is not enough! There should be a sense of real urgency that growing inequalities are the central threat to the very future of the Union. So there have to be extraordinary efforts, driven by the Commission, to overcome this totally unacceptable situation.

Richard Ashworth (PPE). – Mr President, this 2017 audit marks one of the largest year—on—year improvements, and I think for that we should give credit to the Commission and to Commissioner Oettinger. But especially I want us to give credit to former Commissioner Georgieva. She was the one who laid the foundations, and she, I think, deserves our special recognition.

As in previous years, the auditors have commented on the high number of instances where the Member States did have sufficient information with which to identify and intercept errors at a much earlier stage. As President Lehne said earlier, had the Member States done that, the overall result would have been significantly better. It’s important that the public have confidence in the integrity of European expenditure, so audit reports do matter. Therefore I take this opportunity to call on the Member States and ask them to accept their responsibilities – but I also ask them to act on their responsibilities.

Finally, as ever, may I express my thanks to Mr Lehne, President of the Court of Auditors, and his team for a job well done.

Brian Hayes (PPE). – Mr President, I want to congratulate the Court of Auditors once again for a job well done. I think it is really significant that the error rate continues to fall and we need to welcome that as real progress that has been shown. The most important job of the job of auditors is to shine a light on public expenditure as it relates to European funds, and shining a light must lead to change, it must lead to new practices. As other colleagues have said, it must lead to less bureaucracy, not more bureaucracy. We have to do things differently, and in any new budget we have got to prioritise new areas of public expenditure.

As we go forward to the multiannual financial framework (MFF )for the next seven years, let us agree that earlier rather than later. Let us also ensure that we breach the 1% cap, which many Member States do not want to breach, because that will show real solidarity to the 27 Member States that remain within the European Union, and it will also show real determination to be ambitious on European projects that can lead to a better, stronger single market.

I also think it’s important that we highlight in this debate the way in which we can change attitudes and change procedures through better public expenditure. A new MFF must be about new priorities; not just the same old systems but new priorities. That is the best way to respond to the concerns of EU taxpayers.

Daniel Dalton, Rapporteur. – Mr President, we’ve had some tough negotiations over the last few months, thatʼs fair to say, and the text weʼre voting on tomorrow is not perfect. But our discussion showed that we all share the same goal: workable legislation that targets the illicit importing of cultural goods for terrorist financing without overburdening customs authorities or small businesses.

For that reason – unlike the Commission – we recognise the need for value thresholds on most items. We already have value thresholds in the export regulation. For imports, clearly, higher-value items are of greater interest for terrorist financing. So for the Commission not to follow that precedent and to have no value thresholds on a regulation that applies to the whole world – low- as well as high-risk areas – made little sense. Customs authorities are already overwhelmed and unable to check most imports. So to work, this regulation needs to focus on higher-value, higher-risk goods. That is how we deal with customs issues throughout our legislation: risk-based, intelligence-led checks.

This proposal – let’s not forget – was originally drawn up in light of Isis’s control of large areas of Syria and the potential for them to traffic antiquities to fund their activities. Global strife, however, constantly evolves, so our work here needs to be better than just press-release politics, and legislation needs to be fit for changing risks. Importantly, in the Parliament text we also recognise that there are legitimate movements of goods for museums and art fairs that we shouldn’t in any way hinder. Creating long delays to imports would have simply moved these fairs outside Europe, where there is often less oversight.

In the Parliament we agreed from the start on a digital-led approach. Cultural objects cross borders repeatedly, so information needs to be exchanged to allow previously-vetted goods to circulate freely. A fully-electronic system is therefore critical and, given these rules will not be applied until the early 2020s, continuing with a paper system, I think, would look ridiculous.

We also recognise that small businesses will need help in complying with this regulation. Many cultural goods, such as sub-genres of books or types of antiquities, are sold by highly-specialised companies, so micro- and family businesses are at the heart of the trade. The scope is fundamental to the potential burden of this regulation, but we have also proposed targeted measures to further help small companies meet the demands on them. Cooperation with third countries will also be vital to tackling illicit trade.

So I strongly support the provisions we introduced in this regulation to bolster efforts being made to improve the capacities of countries that are struggling to preserve their cultural heritage. By complementing those efforts with sensible import rules, we can act to resolve the whole supply chain for illicit goods rather than just isolating Europe from a global problem.

As I said at the start, although we’ve made significant improvements, this text is not perfect. For example, there is still some potential difficulty in cases where provenance is hard to determine – of which there will be many when dealing with ancient artefacts. This is particularly the case for low—value archaeological items, which fall under the scope of the final text, regardless of whether they are from high- or low-risk areas. It should be possible to import items which have been held legitimately for decades without the cooperation of source countries which lack documentation to judge the original export’s legitimacy. Otherwise, we risk overburdening customs authorities and importers with an unachievable proof requirement that could clog up the system and fail to deliver on the regulation’s aims.

I am optimistic, though, that, through constructive negotiations with the Council, using their first—hand knowledge of customs operations, we can streamline this proposal and emerge with a final law fit for purpose. We want to avoid a ʻfortress Europeʼ approach and unworkable requirements that might prevent the profiteering of Isis but also devastate the responsible family businesses that make up the vast majority of the trade in Europe.

If I can just make one point in response to Ms Mosca’s points: for the UK this is a classic case in point. If these rules are too overburdening for European producers and the UK is outside that market, I can guarantee you that the trade will move to the UK, and no one in Europe or the UK will be thankful for that. I won’t. I want to see us working closely together, and this text is absolutely vital to make sure we get this right in order to do it.

Violeta Bulc,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, in recent years, the world has witnessed the destruction of priceless archaeological sites and monuments and the looting of cultural artefacts by warring factions and terrorist entities worldwide.

There is evidence that some of those artefacts are sold and brought into the Union, with their proceeds potentially used to finance terrorist activities. For instance, early in 2018, a Spanish antiques dealer was arrested in Barcelona for his alleged participation in a wide international network trafficking antiques. The investigation appears to show that these works of art were stolen from archaeological sites in Libya. They were looted by the terrorist organisation Islamic State and were especially intended for the financing of terrorism.

Another example is the seizure by French customs authorities two years ago at Charles de Gaulle Airport of looted cultural goods which probably came from the war region in Iraq and Syria. The Commission is very engaged on the issue of cultural goods trafficking.

The Commission is also fully engaged in the fight against terrorist financing and presented an action plan aiming to reduce the sources of revenue of terrorist organisations in February 2016. Within this context, the Commission made proposals to the Council and Parliament to strengthen customs controls in two areas, one on the control of cultural goods at import and another one on controls on cash entering and leaving the European Union.

The proposal on cash controls has led to the adoption of an amended regulation, soon to be published in the Official Journal. The Commission welcomes the successful effort of the co-legislators on that matter.

On cultural goods, the Commission adopted in July 2017 a proposal to prevent the import and storage, including in free zones, in the EU of cultural goods illicitly exported from third countries. The measure aspires to protect cultural heritage, to combat illicit trade in cultural goods, especially archaeological objects and parts of dismembered monuments, and to strengthen the fight against terrorist financing. At the same time, the right balance between safeguarding of common cultural heritage and avoiding undue burden on trade was fully taken into account.

At present, the EU applies common rules on the export of cultural goods and the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State. However, with the exception of two specific measures prohibiting trade in cultural goods with Iraq and Syria, no common rules exist regarding the import of cultural goods into the EU customs territory.

The Commission’s proposal came as a response to a call for action from the European Parliament and the Council, from international organisations and from governments of the Member States. Our proposal provides a common definition of cultural goods deriving from the 1970 Unesco Convention and the 1995 Unidroit Convention, listing categories of objects which are of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science.

Furthermore, a minimum age threshold of 250 years for such objects is introduced. This allows focusing on cultural goods considered to be the most affected and vulnerable to illicit trade. It also minimises the impact on national authorities and the art market in terms of operational and compliance costs as they already have experience with these thresholds, which exist in US legislation. The proposed regulation establishes a system of import licences and import statements that are required, depending on the category of the cultural goods concerned. The import licence, which implies a higher level of scrutiny, would target the cultural goods most at risk.

Exceptions to this rule are introduced in the case of the temporary admission of an object for scientific or academic research purposes and cultural exchange, or for cultural goods at minimum risk of destruction sent to the Union for safekeeping by a third country’s public authorities.

In order to improve the ability of customs officials to recognise suspicious shipments and to cooperate more efficiently with other law enforcement authorities in preventing illicit trade in cultural goods, the proposal also provides for the organisation of training and capacity—building activities for customs and other law enforcement authorities and awareness-raising campaigns aimed at potential buyers in the Union.

The brief summary I have set out focused on the main elements of the proposal. Let me recall that this is an essential piece of legislation to combat trafficking in cultural goods, deprive terrorists of a source of income and protect cultural heritage.

Before I conclude, please allow me to thank both rapporteurs, Ms Mosca and Mr Dalton, for their constructive cooperation. I am happy to give you the floor and I am looking forward to your interventions.

Jarosław Wałęsa, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, during our work on this file, our objective was to prevent the import into and storage in the EU of cultural goods illegally exported from third countries, but also to reduce trafficking and combat financing of terrorism and, obviously, to protect cultural heritage, especially archaeological objects in countries affected by armed conflict.

During our work the most important and, at the same time, the most challenging issue was the scope. Luckily, we managed to achieve a good compromise, covering all those goods that deserve special protection, but at the same time limiting the scope as much as possible to those cultural goods most affected by illegal trafficking. I believe that it is extremely important not to overburden market actors and disturb the licit trade of cultural goods in the EU, therefore, I am very happy that red tape for the art market will be avoided, in particular for SMEs. This will be possible through the establishment of an economic threshold in addition to the 250—year threshold, which means that not all goods with zero value will be covered by this regulation. To give you an example, without an economic threshold, books from the 18th century which are worth nothing would fall under the scope and administrative costs would probably be higher than the value of the book itself, and that would kill the market. We need common rules to ensure effective protection against the loss of cultural goods and the prevention of terrorist financing through the sale of looted cultural heritage to buyers in the EU. This is the first step towards well-balanced legislation which will protect cultural heritage while enabling the stakeholders concerned to keep trading without barriers.

David Campbell Bannerman, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, as Chair of the Delegation for relations with Iraq, I of course share the objective of tackling terrorist financing. However, I cannot share enthusiasm for this report. Its excessive scope captures too large a volume of cultural goods, with the potential to create disruption to legitimate trade, not to mention burdensome, even unworkable, customs procedures.

The original aim has been totally lost amid a desire to control the art market. This is of course of considerable concern to the UK with its prominence in the art world. Items that bear no relation to stemming terrorist finance, even for example a map of 1900s America, would be caught up in this regulation. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I had initially proposed to limit the scope of the proposal by recommending an age and value threshold. Instead, this requires an extensive list of documents to prove origin, otherwise they will be treated as illicit imports. Overall, I wish we had a more balanced approach that would help combat terrorist financing, but without creating such impractical red tape.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – Thank you, David, for taking my question. I liked what you said, a lot of what you said made sense. Would you agree with me that there is an enormous danger that ordinary people dealing in the art market in small ways – in ‘déballages’ in France, in small markets – are going to be crucified by this ludicrous law, again, this neurosis about terrorism. It is pure Orwell!

There are ways of doing this. At the moment if auction houses see something that should not be on the market, they will inform the authorities. Surely, do you not agree with me that there is enough legislation, we do not need more?

David Campbell Bannerman (ECR), blue-card answer. – Thank you, Mr Coburn, I know that you deal with antiques and are an expert in this area. Yes, I am worried. I have a wonderful grandfather clock. I have no idea how old it is, it is probably 17th century, and I could never prove where it has come from if I were to move it somewhere under these new laws. I also have some stuff from a prime minister, I am related to a former prime minister from before 1900.

So I feel that this is going too far and is impractical, it won’t work and it really doesn’t help. I’m all in favour of cracking down on terrorist financing. This does not help.

Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, let me begin by expressing my amusement at hearing two Brexiteer colleagues being worried about red tape. I guess they would prefer to roll out the red carpet for terrorists. That is something that we should not do.

We have to be very serious about the problem that the trade in illicitly obtained cultural goods presents. Over the last few years, we’ve seen that, for terrorist groups like Daesh in search of income, actually, there has been a prospering market of stolen cultural artefacts that links organised crime, money laundering and the financing of terrorist activities across the world. Europe and also the United Kingdom are not free of the risk of becoming a part of such schemes. That is why we had to take action. Only in 2016, for example, two Syrian freezers were seized at an airport in France. Daesh has emerged as one of the key players. It is also destroying, looting and trading cultural goods for profit, but let’s not forget that they also do this to stamp out cultural identities as part of ethnic cleansing, which is among the most significant crimes that we know of.

We need to tackle the illicit trade in cultural goods with trade measures and by harmonising rules and building on what we already know without burdening galleries and museums. We have come to a common definition of what cultural goods are and identified those most at risk, and are making sure that we have checks on the origin licensing schemes without placing unnecessary burdens on sellers and SMEs. It’s a success in the fight against terrorism.

Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, the illicit trafficking of antiquities is estimated at USD 6 billion per year, of which part is certainly contributing to the financing of terrorism. We have rules to prohibit the trade of cultural goods with Iraq and Syria and we also have legislation that regulates the export of cultural goods, but no rules regulating the import of cultural goods into the EU. This gap obviously has to be filled.

Unfortunately, the text we have in front of us today is far from perfect. I would prefer a less detailed text that did not impose on the art importers the requirement to provide documents that sometimes they cannot have, and that lets customs authorities concentrate on the goods that can – and could – contribute to the financing of terrorism. I hope these flaws will be corrected in trilogue, introducing smooth dialogue and user—friendly procedures for art importers that will allow them to safely import cultural goods into the EU and, for the goods that run a higher risk of being exposed to illicit trade, setting up a more thorough procedure so that custom authorities have the power and means to properly check the goods in question.

Julie Ward (S&D). – Mr President, it is the first time that you have adopted common rules aiming to halt the illegal import and trafficking of cultural goods from outside the EU, often linked to terrorist financing and other criminal activity. These new laws will make it harder for criminal elements to profit from the export of cultural goods from conflict areas, as has previously happened with treasures looted from Iraq and Syria. Cultural appropriation, modification or destruction as a result of occupation is never acceptable.

I wish to mention a specific example from occupied Crimea, where culture is a matter of great concern, especially regarding the conservation of Ukrainian cultural heritage, the illicit trafficking of cultural property and illicit archaeological excavations. The Russian occupying authorities have registered the illegal appropriation of the 32 historic buildings of Khan’s Palace in Bakhchysarai, and launched large-scale restoration works in total defiance of international law, including UNESCO conventions. This threatens the integrity of the palace, which constitutes a site of national significance for Ukraine, as well as an integral part of the cultural heritage of the Crimean Tatar people.

David Coburn (EFDD). – Mr President, well Iʼve listened to this and I cannot believe my ears. Everyone says, ‘it’s all about terrorism’. Pure George Orwell. The best way to prevent the theft of archaeological objects is to rely on auction houses and the antiques trade, and bringing in all these regulations will simply destroy the antiques trade. It won’t help it. It won’t help you get these things back. It’s total nonsense. I don’t really know what you think you’re talking about. You really don’t understand it. It’s really about socialists terrified that people might pass their wealth on, through antiques, to their children. The gentleman up there mentioned that earlier. He was the only one that told the truth. That’s what you are all worried about. You’re terrified somebody might pass on something to their children, and that’s why you’re so worried.

But in the meantime, you’re going to destroy a lot of pleasure for a lot of people. A lot of people like to go to flea markets at the weekend and buy things. Well, that’s all going to be destroyed if, every time somebody sells a horse brass or a candlestick, they have to get 500 years’ worth of provenance on it. It simply won’t work. This shows no common sense, no understanding and there’s utter paranoia about terrorism. If the terrorists want to make money, go short on the markets just before they commence an act of terror. That will make the money for them.

(The President cut off the speaker)

PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI Wiceprzewodniczący

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

Violeta Bulc,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, first let me thank again both rapporteurs and all of you for your active participation in this debate. Allow me to stress one more time that with the legislation we are discussing, we cover only antiques and valuable works of art from impoverished or war—torn countries and regions, which are often illegally acquired, sold and imported into the European Union. In addition to damaging or destroying the archaeological sites and the artefacts themselves, illicit trade in looted cultural goods has also been identified as a source of income for organised crime groups and terrorists.

Before I conclude today’s discussion, please allow me to respond to some of your comments.

First, regarding old books. These are not, I repeat, not, placed under import licence requirements. Only a signed declaration or minimum information will be required.

On the topic of value thresholds, the proposed regulation does not provide for minimum value thresholds, but provides for a high age threshold of 250 years instead. Neither Unesco nor Unidriot nor the Hague Convention provide for minimum age limits. Parliament’s proposal for shorter minimum age limits comes from the EU Regulation on the export of cultural goods and ranges from 50 up to 200 years. That being said, the Commission could consider minimum value limits as well.

Mr Campbell, you do not need to worry about the grandfather clock. The proposed regulation’s scope does not include European cultural goods created or discarded in the territory of the Member States, so no worries about that.

Let me also stress that the proposed regulation does not concern the cultural heritage of Iraq and Syria. On those we have EU measures prohibiting trade – an embargo basically. The comment related to Iraq was, therefore, completely misplaced.

I would also like to stress again that there is already EU legislation about the return of EU cultural goods between Member States. However, the Directive in question does not have retroactive effect and could not be used for the return of looted art during the Second World War. In this particular case, this would be a matter of negotiation between two Member States and can take place anytime.

A common EU-level approach based on everything that we have heard so far is necessary to ensure that imports of cultural goods are subject to uniform controls along the EU’s external borders. The Commission proposal is a follow—up to other EU initiatives aimed at strengthening the fight against terrorism financing, indeed precisely to prevent the import and storage in the EU of cultural goods that have been removed from a third country illegally and thereby combat trafficking in cultural goods, deprive criminals, terrorists and other warring factions of a source of income, and protect cultural heritage.

From what I have heard today in the debate, I can say that the Commission welcomes most elements of Parliament’s position, which will be put to the vote in the plenary tomorrow.

Daniel Dalton, Rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank colleagues for all their statements. We all have the same goal here, namely to tighten rules to prevent the illicit import of cultural goods, and there is clearly consensus for that across the House. But that doesn’t mean that we support all and every measure that is proposed, particularly those that could punish legitimate traders or keep European cultural heritage out of Europe. That’s what a lot of this text does, and we’ve got to be very careful to make sure it doesn’t do that.

The grandfather clock, for example: if that goes outside Europe, you may well not be able to bring it back in. Similarly with the point that Mr Marias was making: if those go out of Europe and you can’t get the approval of the source country to get a licence to bring them back in, under these proposals you’re going to struggle to get European goods back into Europe. No one wants that. I know no one in this House wants that. That’s the point that I’ve been trying to make in these whole discussions, and that’s the problem we still have with this file as it is now. Yes, we need to be very, very strong on terrorist financing and we need to make sure we clamp down on that illicit and serious organised crime route into Europe. But let’s not punish legitimate arts traders, people that have got books – because some books are still covered by this – and a whole range of other European artefacts that we want to make sure can come back into Europe legitimately.

That’s all I’ve asked throughout this process. We have a proposal on the table that I’m not 100% happy with. I’m not going to oppose it and I hope that, in the negotiations with the Council, we can come together to get a final agreement that does look along those lines: do what everyone in this room wants to make sure that we hammer down that potential loophole on terrorist financing but that we do not hurt legitimate traders and legitimate people that have legitimate European cultural heritage.

Violeta Bulc,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, today we are debating a package of proposals for new legislation on veterinary medicines. This includes the Commission’s proposal for new rules on veterinary medical products and medicated feed and amendments to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 on the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products and establishing a European Medicines Agency.

Four years, as mentioned before, of discussions between the co—legislators have made many improvements to the initial proposal put forward by the Commission in 2014. I believe the text before us today provides a legal framework that is modern, innovative and fit for purpose. The package contains very concrete measures to promote more prudent use of antimicrobials in animals and strengthen EU action against antimicrobial resistance. These measures are designed in line with the one-health approach, recognising that human health, animal health and the environment are interconnected. They follow the comprehensive EU Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance. You will remember that Commissioner Andriukaitis came to discuss it in this House several times, including last September in this plenary, when Ms Kadenbach’s own—initiative report on antimicrobial resistance was adopted. I’m very grateful to the European Parliament for its valuable support and intensive work during the negotiations, particularly that of the three rapporteurs: Ms Grossetête, Ms Aguilera García and Mr Tănăsescu. Thank you.

A few words on the individual components. First, on the key elements of the proposal for veterinary medical products. The text lays down a vast array of measures to tackle antimicrobial resistance. They build on the one-health approach and include: first, a ban on the preventive use of antibiotics in groups of animals; second, restrictions on metaphylactic use; third, the possibility to reserve certain antimicrobials for human use only; fourth, a ban on using antimicrobials to promote animal growth, adding to the 2006 ban on antibiotics as feed additives; fifth, other measures aimed at the prudent and responsible use of antimicrobials.

In an ambitious move, the rules on growth promotion and antimicrobials reserved for human use in the EU also apply to non-EU operators exporting their animals or animal products to the EU. In addition, Member States will be required to collect and report data on the sales and use of antimicrobials in animals. This valuable data will support the design and implementation of targeted policies against antimicrobial resistance in the future.

The text also aims to the stimulate innovation and improve availability. It provides for a simplified assessment procedure and a data protection period which may be extended by up to 18 years under certain conditions. This will facilitate the development of new antimicrobial veterinarian medicines, both generally and those more specific to mirror real diseases in major species that may not be developed under current market conditions. These measures will be supported by: first, clear and fully-harmonised labelling requirements; second, a simpler system for variation decisions; and third, a risk—based approach for pharmacovigilance and controls.

The proposal for medical feed will also make an important contribution to the EU’s work on antimicrobial resistance. It will ensure the economically-viable production of safe medicated feed adapted to the optimal local situation and support innovation in medical pet food. A new area it covers is chronically-diseased pets. The proposal creates the legal framework to enable pet owners to administer veterinary medicines via pet food. Once the new regulations are adopted, the Commission will begin urgent action to support its implementation, notably through delegated and implemented acts.

To accompany this package of proposals, the Commission will have two formal statements to make with regard to the reports of Ms Grossetête and Mr Tănăsescu. These have been provided to Parliamentʼs services for inclusion in the record of this debate. The first one concerns veterinarian medical products. On this, the Commission acknowledges the substantial input in terms of resources required by the Member States to implement the new rules on the collection and reporting of data on the sales and use of antimicrobial use in animals. It also underlines its commitment to providing the necessary technical support to Member States to design and implement policies on antimicrobial resistance.

And the second concerns the proposed amendments to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. On this, the Commission will clarify the transition arrangements and state its regret that the alignment of existing provisions with the Lisbon Treaty could not take place under a single legislative instrument.

Dear President, honourable Members, to summarise: the adoption of these new regulations on veterinary medicines will mark a major achievement in this field. They will help consolidate the EU’s position as a world leader in acting against antimicrobial resistance and contribute to global progress in this critical area. They will also deliver a stable and harmonised marketplace for veterinary medicines and medicated feed in the EU that encourages innovation and competitiveness and contributes to greater animal health and welfare and food safety. Thank you again for all the dedicated work and I look forward to a positive outcome in tomorrow’s vote.

“The new EU Regulation on veterinary medicinal products requires Member States to collect and report data on sales and use of antimicrobials used in animals. The Commission considers this information essential to identify possible risk factors for development and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), monitor trends in antimicrobial consumption, target relevant policy measures and assess their implementation. Although the implementation of this legal requirement is foreseen through a gradual (stepwise) approach, it may require substantial input in terms of administrative, human and financial resources.

The European One Health Action Plan against AMR recognises that in order to deliver long-lasting results and create the necessary impetus, it is important that the EU legislation related to AMR (including, inter alia, on the use of veterinary medicines) is adequately implemented. In this context, the Commission has committed in that Action Plan to engage in supporting Member States in the implementation of EU rules, including by providing technical support through the Structural Reform Support Service (SRSS) for designing and implementing policies against AMR.

Furthermore, the Commission will explore the possibilities for supporting this data collection in Member States in line with its proposals made in the context of the future EU Multiannual Financial Framework.”

***

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of

the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency

“The Commission recalls its position that when adapting existing Commission empowerments to Article 290 and 291 TFEU it is not an appropriate legislative technique to provide for transitional provisions that would state that Commission acts adopted previously under those empowerments will continue to apply unless and until repealed. In the Commission's view such provisions state the obvious and would not be coherent with other legislative acts and are liable to induce legal uncertainty at a broader level.

The Commission regrets that only part of the existing regulatory procedure with scrutiny empowerments in Directive 2001/83 and Regulation 1901/2006 will be aligned in this instrument, while the rest of the empowerments remain to be aligned in the context of the negotiations on the Omnibus alignment proposal (COM(2016) 799). In the Commission’s view the full alignment should have taken place in one of the two instruments.”

James Nicholson (ECR). – Mr President, good animal health is absolutely vital for improving overall animal welfare, food production and, ultimately, human health and well—being. Like humans, animals do get sick. That’s the reality. Sometimes it is necessary for antibiotics to be used, in a sensible manner. For instance, the use of antimicrobial products in livestock is important to restore full health as soon as possible and to stop the disease developing further in the animal or throughout the herd or flock.

While preventative use of these products may be necessary under certain conditions, they should never be used as a substitute for proper feed, good hygiene practices in an appropriate environment and animal welfare standards. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in both animals and human beings is a growing cause for concern. I find this agreement strikes a good balance between tackling AMR and also allowing safe and secure access to vital medicines.

In the UK we do things slightly differently – I suppose maybe that’s part of the problem – than is the case in the rest of Europe. Veterinary medicines have to be prescribed and we also have a strong distribution system allowing medicines to be distributed by vets, suitably qualified persons and pharmacists, depending on the type of medicine. The system allows farmers and pet owners accessibility to a choice of essential medicines for their animals, but not antibiotics. I am relieved that this agreement allows us to continue with a system that has stood over the past decades. I congratulate all involved in this report.

Molly Scott Cato (Verts/ALE). – Mr President, the Greens have been seeking to limit the use of antibiotics on farms for 10 years, and Iʼm delighted to say that the outcome of this regulation on medicated feed is a major advance for human and animal welfare. This regulation will introduce some important rules to reduce antibiotic use, including a total ban on the routine use of antibiotics in medicated feed as a preventative measure and better husbandry practices to be adopted instead.

Only vets will be able to prescribe antibiotics in medicated feed in future, and only when there are clear signs of disease in the animals. The length of time that animals can be treated with antibiotics will be limited.

For decades the routine use of antibiotics in livestock farming has propped up a system of factory farming where animals are packed into squalid conditions, only to be pumped full of antibiotics and other medicated feed to prevent the outbreak of disease. This has often been allowed even when an animal or group of animals has shown no sign of illness. This has encouraged appalling animal welfare standards and led to antimicrobial resistance, which has caused many deaths in our continent.

With 91% of European antibiotics administered to farm animals through the feed, these new rules are a significant step in the right direction. Weʼre delighted to welcome this achievement and would like to celebrate this major advance to prevent the growth of antibiotic resistance that is such a threat to public health.

John Stuart Agnew (EFDD). – Mr President, as well-intentioned as this legislation may be, it will be a complete own goal if it renders British livestock producers uncompetitive against meat products from third countries where these rules are not adhered to.

I have heard an EU official say: ‘Well we are going to ban substandard imports and we’re going to stand up to the WTO if it challenges us by insisting on reciprocal standards’. However, this is easier said than done, as it requires the Commission to undertake a formal human health risk assessment, which must follow a defined procedure. The Commission has not done this, with the potential consequence that large quantities of meat will arrive into the UK from farms that use antibiotics prophylactically, as a medicated feed. It is even possible that the antibiotics in this feed are of a type that the British livestock industry voluntarily does not use because of their extensive use for human patients.

I urge the Commission to delay implementing this legislation until either Brexit is safely achieved or they have squared it with the WTO. In any event, the legislation should use sound science when laying down prescriptive rules for medicated feed: for example, the threshold at which carryover in mills becomes a genuine issue.

British livestock vets are high-grade professionals who need flexibility in how they prescribe and use medicines. If this legislation becomes too restrictive, welfare problems may ensue, with culling as the only solution.

I hope that the future independent UK government will think outside the box as regards antimicrobial resistance, because big advances have been made in commercial genetics. Among our wild bird population we find genes that will tolerate a bacterial attack and shrug it off after a few days of lethargy. These genes could be transferred into our own poultry so that medicines are not required in the first place. I’m sure that Ms Molly Scott Cato won’t like that, but it is a genuine solution.

Above all else, we must educate our consumers into taking antimicrobial resistance seriously enough to insist to the supermarkets they do not expect to see substandard products on the shelves.

Diane James (NI). – Mr President, I don’t share the enthusiasm of some of my fellow MEPs, but I do echo what the previous speaker, Mr Agnew, a fellow UK MEP, stated: the risk to British farming is huge.

What I really, really am concerned about is the degree of increasing red tape that this proposed legislation will produce. The sheer scale of surveillance and veterinary resources required will merely see more cost to the consumer. Using trade deals as a control mechanism is equally unlikely to help, unless the European Union anticipates CCTV cameras in Chinese and Dutch pork farms and EU vets visiting USA—Argentinian cattle ranches, French—Vietnamese duck and UK poultry businesses.

This legislative framework runs the risk of driving antimicrobial sourcing under the radar, into the cyber—market and potentially into the black market, and we’ve got no assurance that some of the EU trade deals will actually adhere to it.

John Flack (ECR). – Mr President, it’s good that Parliament is today making the link between animal welfare and the use of veterinary medicines. It’s no wonder so many drugs are needed when 300 million animals a year live their whole lives in cages in the EU, perhaps only feeling the sun on their backs for the first time on the brief journey to the slaughterhouse, many never feeling grass beneath their feet in their short, sad, exploited lives.

This sort of industrial farming is only sustained by ever-more use of antibiotics – unnatural for the animal victims, injurious to human health, the by-products polluting the land and the air. Any decent human being must know in their heart that this sort of exploitation is wrong.

We, as politicians, have a duty to lead and to make the hard decisions people are reluctant to make for themselves. It’s about time we decide the endless cheap chase after cheap food and ever-higher yields must end. It’s about time we stopped corporate greed exploiting animals. I support these proposals.

Violeta Bulc,Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Commission is very satisfied that the European Parliament has shown broad support for the one-health approach, where animal and human health are addressed together in the important fight against antimicrobial resistance.

The international dimension in the fight against resistance is equally important, as this problem does not stop at the border. For this, I would like to stress the importance of international dialogue to developing common rules through, for example, a dialogue at the G20.

On the topic of human health, our regulation provides for the development of a list of antimicrobials that are reserved for human use. This will increase the chance of preventing resistance.

With regard to human medicine, the Commission will complete the assessment of other actions which would be the most appropriate and effective.

Regarding effecting controls on third countries, the Commission will pay special attention to the way the measures are applied in third countries, including through controls.

Concerning possible red tape, we have taken into account for a long time now the special needs of SMEs. For example, we dedicated support from the European Medicines Agency to reducing the fees to be paid by SMEs.

I would like to thank one more time all three rapporteurs for their sense of priority and their focus, which led to a successful negotiation of this regulatory package.